Problems - The Root Cause

[nPeace]

I have a different faith than you.

Apparently. However, I was hoping you could explain where that one came from, because no one seems able to.
Even the tightrope walker's faith is not blind.
So, I was hoping a "blind faith" proponent could explain his idea.
If it's just made up though, I could understand the difficulty in substantiating it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's the point, many branches of science, many branches of philosophy. Some deal with ethics, morals and such. Philosophy also deals with faith and why it's a bad model to base belief on.
...

Evidence please.

You are not the objective authoritative source of correct philosophy, because there is not such thing as objectively correct philosophy with reason, logic and evidence.
The actual falsification of your model is the same as any version of God. I am thinking and acting differently than you and I am doing in this post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Apparently. However, I was hoping you could explain where that one came from, because no one seems able to.
Even the tightrope walker's faith is not blind.
So, I was hoping a "blind faith" proponent could explain his idea.
If it's just made up though, I could understand the difficulty in substantiating it.

Simple.
3 positions.
#1: I know there is no God
#2:: I know there is a God.

The third one: One of those above doesn't know, so there is no need for knowledge. Blind faith works fine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Simple.
3 positions.
#1: I know there is no God
#2:: I know there is a God.

The third one: One of those above doesn't know, so there is no need for knowledge. Blind faith works fine.

I also see "blind faith" as based on something other than knowledge.
I don't accept that it is "blind faith" to believe in God.
It's creeds that people have "blind faith" in, imo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I also see "blind faith" as based on something other than knowledge.
I don't accept that it is "blind faith" to believe in God.
It's creeds that people have "blind faith" in, imo.

Well, you are not a "we" for us 2, so I can still do it differently, no matter how much you don't accept it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I can still do it differently, no matter how much you don't accept it.

Of course you can.
You can claim that belief in God is based on "blind faith", as it is all a matter of perspective.
Doubt just serves to send us astray .. a believer who has experienced the fruits of belief, has to fight it.

Evil comes from ourselves .. the human soul is weak.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course you can.
You can claim that belief in God is based on "blind faith", as it is all a matter of perspective.
Doubt just serves to send us astray .. a believer who has experienced the fruits of belief, has to fight it.

Evil comes from ourselves .. the human soul is weak.

Yeah, you are still claiming objective authority over what it means to be human. The joke is that you don't accept it when other humans do it.

Thus I have given up on that idea, because I have figure out that I don't have to. I just have faith that works for me,

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yeah, you are still claiming objective authority over what it means to be human..

Not really .. just giving you my perspective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not really .. just giving you my perspective.

No, because you claim it for all humans. Your belief about God is correct for all humans and your moral/psychological assessment is correct for all humans.

 

[nPeace]

Simple.
3 positions.
#1: I know there is no God
#2:: I know there is a God.

The third one: One of those above doesn't know, so there is no need for knowledge. Blind faith works fine.

Would you agree that a person may not know, due to willful ignorance, or genuine ignorance?
I don't know, because I am not God, but let's assume you are the latter... would you agree that just believing something, is foolish, and leads to foolish ideas and actions?

For example, if I don't have any knowledge or evidence that I can fly... not fall, but I just believe I can, wouldn't that be foolish of me, and might it not lead me to promoting wrong ideas, and perhaps even taking foolish action?

I remember a news item on a girl who believed she could fly, and jumped out a window... all because she just believed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would you agree that a person may not know, due to willful ignorance, or genuine ignorance?
I don't know, because I am not God, but let's assume you are the latter... would you agree that just believing something, is foolish, and leads to foolish ideas and actions?

For example, if I don't have any knowledge or evidence that I can fly... not fall, but I just believe I can, wouldn't that be foolish of me, and might it not lead me to promoting wrong ideas, and perhaps even taking foolish action?

I remember a news item on a girl who believed she could fly, and jumped out a window... all because she just believed.

Well, your example is not all of the world in practice.
So in effect you must show that the world is objective. There has been no proof of, show no truth of or given evidence to that effect in all of recorded human history.

So your trick is this: Agree with me that we can know something about objective reality and that is then all of knowledge. The joke is that I can disagree and I don't die like in your example. That is the actual falsification of your model.
So to me, your understanding doesn't work for me, because I can do it differently for the idea of objective reality. God to you and an utter unknown to me.

 

[nPeace]

Well, your example is not all of the world in practice.
So in effect you must show that the world is objective. There has been no proof of, show no truth of or given evidence to that effect in all of recorded human history.

So your trick is this: Agree with me that we can know something about objective reality and that is then all of knowledge. The joke is that I can disagree and I don't die like in your example. That is the actual falsification of your model.
So to me, your understanding doesn't work for me, because I can do it differently for the idea of objective reality. God to you and an utter unknown to me.

So it's not foolish to jump out a window 20 feet high or greater.... with concrete below, and nothing in between.
That's not even objective reality?
Hmmm.

When you think you've hear it all... someone comes along and surprises you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So it's not foolish to jump out a window 20 feet high or greater.... with concrete below, and nothing in between.
That's not even objective reality?
Hmmm.

When you think you've hear it all... someone comes along and surprises you.

So we disagree about objective reality and now I am dead.

 

[joelr]

Evidence please.

You are not the objective authoritative source of correct philosophy, because there is not such thing as objectively correct philosophy with reason, logic and evidence.
The actual falsification of your model is the same as any version of God. I am thinking and acting differently than you and I am doing in this post.

You need evidence of philosophy? There is no authoritative source of correct philosophy, you have to find out what works for you. But philosophy is from the mind of people so it cannot be claimed as a divine source and therefore the correct standard which everyone must follow. It's a response to someone saying religion gives meaning to life. You don't have to pick one philosophy either and follow only those creeds. But philosophy from Greek to modern deals with a vast amount of topics

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You need evidence of philosophy? There is no authoritative source of correct philosophy, you have to find out what works for you. But philosophy is from the mind of people so it cannot be claimed as a divine source and therefore the correct standard which everyone must follow. It's a response to someone saying religion gives meaning to life. You don't have to pick one philosophy either and follow only those creeds. But philosophy from Greek to modern deals with a vast amount of topics

You apparently don't have read enough philosophy to know that there are at least one school of philosophy, that claims objective authoritative evidence and morality just like some religions.
Religions are a natural human behaviour and not the only way to claim objective authoritative evidence and morality.

All claims of that is not just found in religion and all religions are not supernatural or even theistic.

 

[joelr]

You apparently don't have read enough philosophy to know that there are at least one school of philosophy, that claims objective authoritative evidence and morality just like some religions.
Religions are a natural human behaviour and not the only way to claim objective authoritative evidence and morality.

All claims of that is not just found in religion and all religions are not supernatural or even theistic.

Yes I am aware but the difference is in the religious version it's being claimed that the God of all reality said it's so. With philosophy it's just one person saying "I think this is the best philosophy".

But that has nothing to do with the point which is you do not need religion for finding a meaning in life. Exploring philosophy may connect one with meaning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I am aware but the difference is in the religious version it's being claimed that the God of all reality said it's so. With philosophy it's just one person saying "I think this is the best philosophy".

But that has nothing to do with the point which is you do not need religion for finding a meaning in life. Exploring philosophy may connect one with meaning.

But that meaning is to some in philosophy as objectively authorative as some forms of religion.
Your idea seems to be that only religion have some objective authoritative systems. That is not the case. You can also find those in philosophy.

 

[joelr]

But that meaning is to some in philosophy as objectively authorative as some forms of religion.
Your idea seems to be that only religion have some objective authoritative systems. That is not the case. You can also find those in philosophy.

No personal idea that one considers objective is the same as laws from a God. No person can claim to be so important that they demand laws be enacted to force teachers to teach their objective reality in schools.
I would ask what philosophy do you feel would be objectively authoritative?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No personal idea that one considers objective is the same as laws from a God. No person can claim to be so important that they demand laws be enacted to force teachers to teach their objective reality in schools.
I would ask what philosophy do you feel would be objectively authoritative?

Any variant that claims in effect objective reason, logic and evidence for what everything/reality/the universe/the world really is.
E.g. the claim that the universe is physical is such a case. If you check there is no evidence for that, just as there is no evidence for God.

I.e. any variant of X is Y for the general aspects of the everyday world runs into the falsification of non-Y if that is possible.
So for the universe is physical, I just have to answer: No! That is so because that No! is not physical, it is mental as a result of my mental cognition. Further I just have to ask how you observe that the universe is physical, but you can't observe that, because it is an idea in your mind just like God is an idea in a mind.

That is the short version. I can go through it with more examples, but that depends on how you answer.

 

[joelr]

Any variant that claims in effect objective reason, logic and evidence for what everything/reality/the universe/the world really is.
E.g. the claim that the universe is physical is such a case. If you check there is no evidence for that, just as there is no evidence for God.

I.e. any variant of X is Y for the general aspects of the everyday world runs into the falsification of non-Y if that is possible.
So for the universe is physical, I just have to answer: No! That is so because that No! is not physical, it is mental as a result of my mental cognition. Further I just have to ask how you observe that the universe is physical, but you can't observe that, because it is an idea in your mind just like God is an idea in a mind.

That is the short version. I can go through it with more examples, but that depends on how you answer.

I'm not really interested in post modernism. We can run independent tests to show there is something we call physical that is different than ideas in our minds. There are forces that obey predictable laws.